assets means what they own includes cash and tangible assets

net income is profit after production and other expenses.Its not pure profit.there is more to be deucted as taxes.PAT(profit after tax) is pure profit.

equity is the total value of all the shares of the company.

equity are not assets as people buy equity when company is profiting which will earn them profit and sell them.Equity is almost like betting and predicting stuff

Buying Rockstar wouldn't be very easy. Look how much Rare cost Microsoft. Rockstar has properties that are far more valuable.

You're failing to grasp a very simple concept here.  Sony may have lost 1 billion dollars in 2009.  (Which certainly is not good for them and hurts, but it's hardly 'crippling' Sony at this juncture.).   Sony the company is worth in the hundreds of billions (Which includes a wide, wide array of assets.)    Sony could liquidate half of their business tomorrow and make all of their 'losses' back and gain billions on top of that.   

There is no point in doing that though.  Why would they?  So their financial reports look healthier?    Certainly not.     Make no mistake about it,  Nintendo is poorer than Sony on a very real and legitimate sense. 

On a very simple sense,  It's a lot easier for Sony to garner 10 billion dollars on command and keep moving forward than it is for Nintendo.   For example,  If Person A has a bicycle and 20 dollars to his name and Person B has a Car and 10 dollars to his name.....Who has more money?   Person A may have more liquid cash but Person B easily could have 20x the amount of money that Person A does because they have more assets to their name. 

As this pertains to the thread,  I don't think Sony would dump tons of money into acquiring any of those companies because there isn't much of a need for it. 

RARE cost microsoft so much cause it was a subsidary and their owners Nintendo and another party could price it as high as they want.

Rockstar too is a subsidary but its owner Take 2 pretty much survives because of GTA and other games like Bioshock,2K sports,midnight club.So it wouldn't be hard to say that Rockstar would cost 60% of what Take 2's valuation is today.

Take 2 valuation at max is around $2.5b.So Rockstar would cost around $1-1.5b

yeah i understand.I agree completetly.That buying Rockstar isn't worth it.

Solid_Snake you havn't got a clue, why don't you leave the financial talk up to the people that know what they're talking about ...

so why don't you explain me,i could learn from you

Bollocks...Rockstar is far to big for them to buy them,the money it would cost them is too much.It would be worth it in terms of the gaming community's jaws dropping,but if it happened,it'd be half way through the 8th generation before Sony see some financial return.

I'd much rather Sony buy Square Enix,though that's equally as unlikely.

He's just jealous

LOL you are actually clueless

http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NYSE:SNE

Financial power is self explanatory dude, whenever You want to buy something the easyness with wich you will do it depends on your purchase power. The more debt you have the less people are going to let you take risks.

Nintendo has almost always maintained huge liquidities in order to invest as it wants. Sony on the opposite has been confined in a doyuble binding since the 90's to maintain its' infrastructures (which can be measured by its' assets : fuckng heavyweight man) while trying to remain responsive, fit and competitive.

Since japanese are allergic to lay-offs in general Sony has had to call an American CEO for it to make the tough decisions. In the meantime it has contracted quite a few debts :